Complaint filed on: 28.04.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 27.03.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027    

CC.No.884/2012

DATED THIS THE 27^th MARCH OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                                 

Mr.Nitesh Agarwal

s/o Mahendra Kumar Agarwal

aged about 20 years

student, 4^th Semester BE,

BMS college of Engineering.

Residing at No.1353, 5^th cross, Ashokanagar, BSK 1^st stage, Bengaluru-560056

By Adv.Sri.V.Subhash Reddy

V/s

Opposite party/s:-       

1. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (H.P)

Having its branch office at no.24, Salarpuria, Arena, Adugodi, Hosur Road, Bengaluru-560030

Rep. by its Managing Director

By Advocates

M/s.Harsha & Co.,

2. Maha Electronics pvt. ltd.

No.28-8-2, 1^st floor, 15^th cross, 3^rd block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560011

Rep.by its Manager

3. The Croma Electronics

EVA, Mall, Brigade Road,

Ground - first floor,

Bengaluru-560025

Rep.by its Manager

Opposite parties no.2 & 3 placed - Ex-parte

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

                The Complainant has been alleging the manufacturing defects of Opposite party no.1/company in his laptop purchased from Opposite party no.3/dealer and also the deficiency in service with Opposite party no.2/service centre and thereby has claimed the reliefs of:

1. Damages of Rs.10,000/-and
2. Replacement of the defective laptop

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he being 4^th semester BE student purchased the HP-Pavilion-dv6-6165tx high end model laptop of Opposite party no.1/company from Opposite party no.3/dealer. When it was found defective with certain problems it was taken to Opposite party no.2/service center, repeatedly and it was found continued with the same problem which should not have been occurred.  Without rectifying the actual defect his complaint was considered as closed by the Opposite parties no.2 & 3. The said laptop is still with the Opposite party no.3/service center as it was not replaced with new one with in the warranty period. The Opposite parties no.1 & 2 refused to entertain his complaint stating that there is no scope for replacement since the trouble was not noticed during the time when the system was delivered to him. The said act is intentional one and it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

          3. Opposite party no.1 only has filed the version contending that the laptop serviced at Opposite party no.2 is not having the manufacturing defect. This complaint is filed on vague, baseless allegations with malafide intention. There is no consumer dispute. He has not produced an expert opinion from the notified laboratory to prove that the laptop suffers from problems nor offered the alleged defective laptop as provided u/s 13(1)(c). The asserted complaints of the laptop hanging was reported during warranty period and it was found virus related problem for which the service center could not be able to take any action and hence the complainant was asked to go for virus removal procedure and he denied the same. As the goodwill gesture, the Opposite party without setting a precedent extended the warranty period of 90 days but the Complainant with adamant nature filed this complaint on false grounds. There was no deficiency on their part. There was no manufacturing defect in the said laptop. Complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost u/s 26 of CP Act. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint consisting of several issues involving questions of facts and law which can be determined by the civil courts. There was no hardware issue which can be addressed by the Opposite parties. The issue occurred due to virus did not get resolved by replacing its parts.  The laptop was retained by Opposite party no.2 for two days check up to see that the issue should not be repeated.  He has to prove that the laptop of high end model is not having threat of virus. There were no known issues in the laptop relating to hardware items. Complaint is filed to gain wrongfully. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          4. Opposite parties no.2 & 3 are placed ex-parte. The Complainant and authorized signatory of Opposite party no.1 filed their affidavit evidences and relied on Ex-A1 to A5 and Ex-B1 to B7 documents respectively. Written arguments filed by Opposite party no.1 only. Arguments were heard.  

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged manufacturing defect of Opposite party no.1 company in his laptop purchased from Opposite party no.3/dealer and also the deficiency in service with Opposite party no.2/service centre ?
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant being the B.E. student purchased the laptop (HP-Pavilion-dv6-6165tx) of Opposite party no.1/ company from the Opposite party no.3/dealer on 25.10.11 wide Ex-A3 receipt for Rs.61,892.51.

8. During December 2012 he started facing trouble with purchased laptop and gave it to the Opposite party no.2/service center. He gave it frequently on 07.03.12, 20.03.12 & on 02.04.12 wide 3 service call reports all marked as Ex-A4.  On 07.03.12 he had reported “system hanging and intermittently note book is not able to shut down, it takes more time”. On 20.03.12 he was reported “system hangs while running any application within 10-20 minutes and unable to shut down or use task manager, not shutting down after hanging issue”. On 02.04.12 it was reported “system gets hanged while running any applications, after hanging not shutting down”.

          9. On 13.04.12, the service center addressed the Complainant requesting to him to collect the note book informing him that replacement is not an option as it has confirmed that there is no known hardware issue in the note book and the warranty policies are also very clear that repair is the option available to him. It is also further informed that as an exception, for the loss of time, warranty period was extended for 90 days from the date of purchase.

          10. The Opposite party sent the email notification Ex-A5 dtd.21.04.12 with status report “case is closed”. In Ex-A5 it is mentioned that the problem regarding over heating issue while running any application was attended.

11. Ex-B1 to B7, the correspondence between the service centers of the manufacturing unit show that the unit was kept for their observation about the complaint made by the customer and during the said period it was found working fine even while playing movies, batch files etc., without getting hanging and thereby they concluded that there is no technical concern with the hardware of the laptop and thereby the customer was updated about the said stages but he has not hearing to their advice. Hence the said complaint was taken as elevated and escalated to their CRT team, where also no technical issues were found and hence, the customer was sent with the information that his case has been rejected for unit level replacement.

          12. The Opposite party no.1 has relied on ExB1 to B7 documents for which no contra materials were placed by the Complainant. In this background the contention of the Opposite party that the Complainant who alleges the defect has failed to produce the supporting expert laboratory report and their observations about the alleged problems did not show existence of such reported problems.  The problems were not relating to their hardware items.  The Opposite party also contended that the disputed issue was relating to virus on the note book for which they replaced the system board and processor and the said replacing did not get resolved by replacing those parts. Hence, the Complainant was advised to go for virus removal procedure of the laptop and as he failed to take return of the laptop and insisted for replacement having no other choice they treated the complaint as closed.

          13. The contention of the Opposite party that the reported problems of the laptop of the Complainant were not relating to its hardware but relating to removal of virus process is remained unchallenged. The Complainant could have produced the expert opinion from the notified laboratory to show that the said laptop suffers from manufacturing defects and not from the alleged virus related problems.

          14. The Opposite party has contended that the laptop was retained for observation to note the presence of the alleged problems while operating the systems. The Opposite party no.1 has stated that the service center men by playing movies, batch files etc., through that laptop, got the confirmation that there was no hanging problem and there were no manufacturing defects in the laptop and thereby the Complainant was advised to take back his laptop but he refused by demanding the new laptop only. The Complainant could have produced the same laptop while taking it back to the forum atleast seeking expert report through process of this forum and thereby he has not complied the provision under 13(1)(c).

          15. The Complainant could have produced the warranty copy to show under what provision the Opposite parties become liable to replace with new one, merely because it was given for repairs. The Opposite party has contended that as per the warranty conditions in the absence of manufacturing defects therein the Complainant gets right to get it repaired and not to seek the replacement. The Complainant has not explained as to why he refused to adopt virus removal process to his purchased laptop. He has also not proved that high end laptops will not get virus problems and his laptop also come under that category. In the result the Complainant has failed to establish the alleged manufacturing defect in the purchased laptop and also failed to prove how the Opposite parties become liable to replace with new laptop and thereby the Consumer Dispute no.1 is answered as negative.

          16. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 27^th day of March 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

Copies of Documents marked

on behalf of Opposite party no.1